A senior Bush administration official said that, despite doubts within the CIA and FBI, evidence “holds up” that alleged al-Qaeda member and Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague five months before the attacks on New York and Washington, the Los Angeles Times reported today (see GSN, May 9).

Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross said in October 2001 that Atta had flown to Prague in April 2001 and met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, a vice consul at the Iraqi Embassy who was later expelled from the Czech Republic on suspicion that he was an intelligence agent.  If true, the meeting might provide a link between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda, possibly justifying a U.S. military campaign to overthrow Hussein, according to the Times (see GSN, July 29).

The CIA and FBI, however, decided previously that there is no hard evidence behind the Czech report.  There is evidence Atta had “passed through” Prague in 1999 and 2000, and it is possible that he visited again in spring 2001, but there is no hard evidence to substantiate that he met with al-Ani, a U.S. intelligence official said.  The CIA has not been asked to reevaluate the case, the official added, and the agency had found “no known support by Saddam for al-Qaeda cells.”

On the other hand, a federal law enforcement official said yesterday that the FBI has been reviewing a possible Atta-Iraq link with “renewed vigor” in the last few weeks.  The official said that he does not know whether the FBI has found any clear connections but that the case is one of the “more urgent” priorities.

The administration official said Hussein poses several threats to the United States, including links to international terrorism.

“There is growing evidence that that includes organizations like al-Qaeda.  That would be a mortal threat to the United States,” the official said.

Other threats include “spreading terror” in the Middle East by actions such as paying money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and posing a “tactical threat,” including firing on U.S. and British planes patrolling U.N.-mandated zones in northern and southern Iraq.

Iraq has “a relationship” with al-Qaeda, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday, but he refused to provide details (see GSN, June 21). 

“I mean, we’re not on the ground” in Iraq, he said.  “But are there al-Qaeda in Iraq?  Yes.  Are there al-Qaeda in Iran?  Yes.  Are there al-Qaeda in the United States?  Yes” (see GSN, July 12; Bob Drogin, Los Angeles Times, Aug. 2).

Price Tag on Occupying Iraq

Meanwhile, analysts told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday that maintaining stability in Iraq after a U.S. ouster of Hussein would be expensive and would require years of U.S. involvement.  A long-term U.S. commitment would be necessary to prevent Iraq from spiraling into chaos or to avoid the rise of a regime no better than Hussein, panelists said.

“If firm leadership is not in place in Baghdad on the day after [Hussein loses power], retribution, score-settling, blood-letting, especially in urban areas, could take place,” said Phebe Marr, a specialist on Iraq at the National Defense University.

The United States would have to maintain a security force of 75,000 troops in Iraq for at least one year after removing Hussein from power at a cost of $16.2 billion a year, said retired Col. Scott Feil, former head of the Pentagon’s joint staff’s strategy division.  At least 5,000 U.S. soldiers would have to stay in Iraq for up to 10 years as peacekeepers, he added (Miami Herald, Aug. 2).

A source familiar with the Pentagon’s planning said Feil’s estimate might be too low.  An 80,000-troop force costing $20 billion annually might be necessary, the source said.

A U.S. peacekeeping force in Iraq would have to minimize infighting among Iraqi factions, prevent internal strife from spilling into other countries, secure Iraqi chemical and biological weapons sites, patrol the Iranian border and guard major oil fields, USA Today reported.

Some senators expressed surprise at the potential cost.

“There is an enormous commitment of expense and people for a number of years,” Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) said (John Diamond, USA Today, Aug. 2).

Debate Over Congressional Approval

Meanwhile, two Democratic senators introduced a resolution to the Senate Tuesday to call on the president to obtain congressional statutory authorization or a declaration of war before using military force against Iraq.

“Should Iraq be unwilling to live up to its obligations and the president determines that there is just cause for military action against Iraq, I urge him to come before this Congress, to come before the American people, to make his case and let us in turn discharge our constitutional duty to debate and vote on the authorization of the use of force,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who introduced the resolution (U.S. State Department release, Aug. 1).

U.S. Renews Embargo

U.S. President George W. Bush renewed the U.S. economic embargo against Iraq for another year today.

“I am continuing for one year the national emergency with respect to Iraq,” he said in a letter to Congress, adding that the country “has continued to engage in activities hostile to U.S. interests.”

The United States imposed the sanctions and froze Iraqi assets in the United States after Iraq invaded Kuwait 12 years ago.  It has renewed the embargo annually since then (Agence France-Presse/Times of India, Aug. 2).

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP

Back to top